[BAN] [Ridgyax] Dopamiin

[Dopamiin]

BYOND account: Dopamiin
Character name: CASS-E
Ban type: Server
Ban length: 12 hours
Ban reason: Fired an OB as AI (The FC had placed down a laze as a joke in the middle of a marine push) that resulted in the deaths of multiple marines. Light punishment due to having said prior in the round that they would instantly firing on any OB and an overall lack of notes.
Time ban was placed: 2024-01-16 15:25:17
Round ID in which ban was placed: 25228
Your side of the story:
One of the generally more compelling reasons to play AI at all, or have one on the marine team, is their knack for "fast firing" OBs. Most squad leaders and field commanders are extremely grateful to have their OB lases fired extremely quickly, as AIs get a loud audio and visual notification whenever an OB is lased for and can keep the overwatch console open at all times, so they can fire OBs while focusing on something completely different. At the beginning of the round during preparation, I announce- twice- in fire support communications that I will be doing this, and that "fake out" lases or similar should be avoided unless I am made aware.

Prior to the incident, multiple OBs have already been fired, to similar extremely fast response. There is a reasonable expectation, at least in my mind, that any OB lased for would be quickly fired upon. As an additional note, unlike with staffing CIC as an SO or Captain, clicking on the lase target as AI does NOT show you the target location.

Due to events in the round I was manning a combat droid when I got the audible OB notification. I became aware after the fact that there was a message in the common channel indicating that this was aimed directly for marines, but as I was actively piloting a combat droid, I missed one green message among the hoard of fifty others as I fired the OB.

After this fact, Ridgyax proceeded to use the admin announce tool to say (off of memory, please correct me if I'm wrong) "That's a banning" to the entire server - that is to say, before the ticket had even been created or any of the context known, the end result was already decided.
Why you think you should be unbanned: What, exactly, is the precedent this ban is meant to service? That command staff have a responsibility to read every message in common before firing an OB? That AIs are always responsible for the outcome of an OB? Is the process of fast firing simply disallowed, and AIs have a responsibility to stop and ask marines if they're CERTAIN they want that OB that was lased for to be fired, for every single OB?

SS13, and TGMC specifically, is a game about making fast paced decisions with partially flawed information. Sometimes the decisions you make will have negative consequences. Almost every round with an AI has functionally identical behavior to what I did that round - an OB is lased, an OB is fired. The difference in my case was that I failed to read a single message, in the same color as every other message, in the middle of a heated round, that would have informed me that an OB would be lased deliberately under marines, a decision I had zero reason to expect otherwise. I ask again: what precedent, exactly, is being set here, that genuine mistakes in a game about acting quickly with flawed information is worthy of a first time offense being a ban?

Frankly speaking, the ban itself isn't a big deal to me. It's 12 hours. But bans should serve, at least in my opinion, as a tool to stop detrimental behavior the offender is likely to repeat. What exactly is the behavior, and why am I considered likely to repeat it?

References of good conduct: I have played SS13 for about 2500 hours (TGMC specifically for 700-800) and before this my only two negative notes have been automutes in TGMC.

[EmpressMaia]

Hey I was a marine then xeno in this round. And I'm chiming in to show the message I believe you are referring to of riggygax?

[Dopamiin]

No, this was a second message - before that, Ridgyax announced "that's a banning." (Weird to me to directly state intent to ban to the entire server and then wheel back on it.)

[k4rl]

Hey, have not played that round however, i will be posting this video here as the POV of the admin that announced "thats a banning"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGunVuvYYs

[Ridgyaxe]

One of the generally more compelling reasons to play AI at all, or have one on the marine team, is their knack for "fast firing" OBs. Most squad leaders and field commanders are extremely grateful to have their OB lases fired extremely quickly, as AIs get a loud audio and visual notification whenever an OB is lased for and can keep the overwatch console open at all times, so they can fire OBs while focusing on something completely different. At the beginning of the round during preparation, I announce- twice- in fire support communications that I will be doing this, and that "fake out" lases or similar should be avoided unless I am made aware. ----- The FC Did attempt to make you aware, stating over communications that they were lazing directly on marines.

Prior to the incident, multiple OBs have already been fired, to similar extremely fast response. There is a reasonable expectation, at least in my mind, that any OB lased for would be quickly fired upon. As an additional note, unlike with staffing CIC as an SO or Captain, clicking on the lase target as AI does NOT show you the target location. ----- This is true. For the majority of the round, OBs had been fired particularly quickly after being lazed.

Due to events in the round I was manning a combat droid when I got the audible OB notification. I became aware after the fact that there was a message in the common channel indicating that this was aimed directly for marines, but as I was actively piloting a combat droid, I missed one green message among the hoard of fifty others as I fired the OB. ----- Why would you fire the OB in the situation that you're in a combat droid then?

After this fact, Ridgyax proceeded to use the admin announce tool to say (off of memory, please correct me if I'm wrong) "That's a banning" to the entire server - that is to say, before the ticket had even been created or any of the context known, the end result was already decided. ---- I apologize for the use of the admin announce tool to announce that. I should have kept that to myself instead of announcing it. I had already decided that the events of this scenario would result in a ban (12 marines were gibbed and removed from the round.), but I still had to investigate the who, what, and why of these events.

What, exactly, is the precedent this ban is meant to service? That command staff have a responsibility to read every message in common before firing an OB? That AIs are always responsible for the outcome of an OB? Is the process of fast firing simply disallowed, and AIs have a responsibility to stop and ask marines if they're CERTAIN they want that OB that was lased for to be fired, for every single OB? ----- There are either One or Two people responsible for the Firing of an OB. If it's just the person using the binos to target and fire the OB, the responsibility lies on them. If someone in CIC is using the console to fire the OB before the person with the laser designator can fire it themselves, then it becomes two people responsible. The AI itself is not responsible for the OB in its entirety, but as a part of the equation to that OB being fired, you are held accountable for the results of it.

SS13, and TGMC specifically, is a game about making fast paced decisions with partially flawed information. Sometimes the decisions you make will have negative consequences. Almost every round with an AI has functionally identical behavior to what I did that round - an OB is lased, an OB is fired. The difference in my case was that I failed to read a single message, in the same color as every other message, in the middle of a heated round, that would have informed me that an OB would be lased deliberately under marines, a decision I had zero reason to expect otherwise. I ask again: what precedent, exactly, is being set here, that genuine mistakes in a game about acting quickly with flawed information is worthy of a first time offense being a ban? ---- I agree, genuine mistakes DO happen. This is part of the reason as to why the duration of your ban was so short, when the end result of your actions resulted in around a dozen people being taken out of the game.

Frankly speaking, the ban itself isn't a big deal to me. It's 12 hours. But bans should serve, at least in my opinion, as a tool to stop detrimental behavior the offender is likely to repeat. What exactly is the behavior, and why am I considered likely to repeat it? ---- You state yourself that one of the perks of the AI is in being able to fire the OB while 99% of the time, a 'human' player would have to wait far longer to fire the OB (The 1% being someone just sitting in CIC.) Hopefully, you will be a little more careful about firing the OB as an AI in the future, so as not to have the same result in the future.

[Dopamiin]

Maybe I'm just stupid. Maybe something's just not clicking for me. But your argument still seems entirely based around - as your own admission goes - justifying a ban you had already decided would take place.

Is the only concern for the process of firing an OB the ultimate end result? By your own admission, this was a genuine mistake. At no point in my actions was I acting with any sort of deliberate malice. Also by your own admission, you had already decided - completely unrelated to the actions taken by the players responsible - that regardless of malice, or precautions taken, or basically anything else - that I would be banned, solely due to the consequences of said mistake.

So. Let's say we live in your world, where anyone "a part of the equation to that OB being fired" is directly responsible for the end result. Hypothetical scenario: a ship tech accidentally puts in only 4 units of fuel for an OB, when this round, it's supposed to be 6. The OB, consequentially, misfires closer to the marine push, killing several marines. Does the ship tech get banned for making that error? Does the FC get banned for lasing too close to the marines? What if, instead of a ship tech, it was the CMO instructed over comms to quickly load the OB? What if they had been told to load it with 4 units? What if there was only 4 units of fuel because the RO underordered, possibly due to another miscommunication - does the RO get banned?

Ultimately, there's a thousand other variations on this issue, but I believe our disagreement stems from a more fundamental ethical issue - you seem to believe that someone should be judged based mostly or entirely around the consequences of their actions - in this case, because my actions, directly or indirectly, lead to the deaths of 12 marines, regardless of intent or circumstance, I should be held accountable. My belief is that someone's actions should be judged based on the context in which those actions were taken - that is to say, whether they made reasonable choices given the situation they were in. On that note, I believe my actions were reasonable. During an active round, while under duress, I missed a warning that an OB was being deliberately targeted for marine forces, something that would be unreasonable to expect. As keeping with both a statement I had made twice prior in the round, and with a precedent I had set and maintained, all OBs would be fired as fast as possible, and as such I fired this one as quickly as possible as well. Missing one chat message in the common channel is, at least in my opinion, not ban worthy.

Had this situation taken place exactly as-is, but the OB misfired and missed, would I be banned, under your precedent? Had it taken place, but marines were successfully evacuated from the blast radius, would I be banned? Because- daily- exactly these sorts of situations happen, where due to one reason or another a disaster is averted, and yet near misses never seem to be considered ban worthy, regardless of the actions taken by the people in a similar situation.

I appreciate you apologizing for the misuse of the admin announce tool, as it was rather unprofessional in my opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that you treated the case as presumed guilty without ability to be proven innocent.

[Ridgyaxe]

Up to Two people are responsible for firing the OB. The one who targets it, and the one who fires it. It may be the same person. That is my opinion.

At the request of a Headmin, ban note changed into a regular note.